Spatial and temporal niche overlap of aardwolves and aardvarks in Serengeti National Park, Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Species interactions can influence species distributions, but mechanisms mitigating competition or facilitating positive interactions between ecologically similar species are often poorly understood. Aardwolves (Proteles cristata) and aardvarks (Orycteropus afer) are nocturnal, insectivorous mammals that co‐occur in eastern and southern Africa, and knowledge of these species is largely limited to their nutritional biology. We used aardwolf and aardvark detections from 105 remote cameras during 2016–2018 to assess their spatial and temporal niche overlap in the grasslands of Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Using a multispecies occupancy model, we identified a positive interaction between occupancy probabilities for aardwolves and aardvarks. Slope, proportion of grassland and termite mound density did not affect the occupancy probabilities of either species. The probability of aardwolf, but not aardvark, occupancy increased with distance to permanent water sources, which may relate to predation risk avoidance. Diel activity overlap between aardwolves and aardvarks was high during wet and dry seasons, with both species being largely nocturnal. Aardwolves and aardvarks have an important ecological role as termite consumers, and aardvarks are suggested to be ecosystem engineers. Our results contribute to a better understanding of the spatial and temporal niche of insectivores like aardwolves and aardvarks, suggesting high spatial and temporal niche overlap in which commensalism occurs, whereby aardwolves benefit from aardvark presence through increased food accessibility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".